Changes in End-of-Life Symptom Management Prescribing among Long-Term Care Residents during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in the prescribing of end-of-life symptom management medications in long-term care (LTC) homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included all individuals who died in LTC homes between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2021. We separated the study into 2 periods: before COVID-19 (January 1, 2017, to March 17, 2020) and during COVID-19 (March 18, 2020, to March 31, 2021). METHODS: For each LTC home, we measured the percentage of residents who died before and during COVID-19 who had a subcutaneous symptom management medication prescription in their last 14 days of life. We grouped LTC homes into quintiles based on their mean prescribing rates before COVID-19, and examined changes in prescribing during COVID-19 and COVID-19 outcomes across quintiles. RESULTS: We captured 75,438 LTC residents who died in Ontario's 626 LTC homes during the entire study period, with 19,522 (25.9%) dying during COVID-19. The mean prescribing rate during COVID-19 ranged from 46.9% to 79.4% between the lowest and highest prescribing quintiles. During COVID-19, the mean prescribing rate in the lowest prescribing quintile increased by 9.6% compared to before COVID-19. Compared to LTC homes in the highest prescribing quintile, homes in the lowest prescribing quintile experienced the highest proportion of COVID-19 outbreaks (73.4% vs 50.0%), the largest mean outbreak intensity (0.27 vs 0.09 cases/bed), the highest mean total days with a COVID-19 outbreak (72.7 vs 24.2 days), and the greatest proportion of decedents who were transferred and died outside of LTC (22.1% vs 8.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: LTC homes in Ontario had wide variations in the prescribing rates of end-of-life symptom management medications before and during COVID-19. Homes in the lower prescribing quintiles had more COVID-19 cases per bed and days spent in an outbreak.

Measuring the Use of End-of-Life Symptom Relief Medications in Long-Term Care Homes-a Qualitative Study.

Background: At the end of life, individuals may experience physical symptoms such as pain, and guidelines recommend medications to manage these symptoms. Yet, little is known about the symptom management long-term care (LTC) residents receive at the end of life. Our research team developed a metric-whether residents receive one or more prescriptions for an end-of-life symptom management medication in their last two weeks-to explore end-of-life care for LTC residents. This qualitative study aimed to inform the refinement of the end-of-life prescribing metric, including the acceptability and applicability to assess the quality of a resident's symptom management at end-of-life. Methods: We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with Ontario health-care providers (physicians and nurses) who work in LTC homes and family caregivers of residents who died in LTC. Interviews were conducted virtually between February 2021 and December 2022, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We identified three major themes relating to perceptions of the metric: 1) appropriateness, 2) health-care provider applicability, and 3) caregiver applicability. Participants noted that the metric may be appropriate to assess end-of-life care, but noted important nuances. Regarding applicability, health-care providers found value in the metric and that it could inform their practice. Conversely, caregivers found limited value in the metric. Conclusion: The proposed metric captures a very specific aspect of end-of-life care-whether end-of-life medications were prescribed or not. Participants deemed that the metric may reflect whether LTC homes have processes to manage a resident's end-of-life symptoms with medication. However, participants thought the metric could not provide a complete picture of end-of-life care and its quality.

Palliative End-of-Life Medication Prescribing Rates in Long-Term Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Medications are often needed to manage distressing end-of-life symptoms (eg, pain, agitation). OBJECTIVES: In this study, we describe the variation in prescribing rates of symptom relief medications at the end of life among long-term care (LTC) decedents. We evaluate the extent these medications are prescribed in LTC homes and whether prescribing rates of end-of-life symptom management can be used as an indicator of quality end-of-life care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative health data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: LTC decedents in all 626 publicly funded LTC homes in Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2017, and March 17, 2020. METHODS: For each LTC home, we measured the percent of decedents who received 1+ prescription(s) for a subcutaneous end-of-life symptom management medication ("end-of-life medication") in their last 14 days of life. We then ranked LTC homes into quintiles based on prescribing rates. RESULTS: We identified 55,916 LTC residents who died in LTC. On average, two-thirds of decedents (64.7%) in LTC homes were prescribed at least 1 subcutaneous end-of-life medication in the last 2 weeks of life. Opioids were the most common prescribed medication (overall average prescribing rate of 62.7%). LTC homes in the lowest prescribing quintile had a mean of 37.3% of decedents prescribed an end-of-life medication, and the highest quintile mean was 82.5%. In addition, across these quintiles, the lowest prescribing quintile had a high average (30.3%) of LTC residents transferred out of LTC in the 14 days compared with the highest prescribing quintile (12.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Across Ontario's LTC homes, there are large differences in prescribing rates for subcutaneous end-of-life symptom relief medications. Although future work may elucidate why the variability exists, this study provides evidence that administrative data can provide valuable insight into the systemic delivery of end-of-life care.

A Clinical Response Team Providing Support to Long-Term Care Homes with COVID-19 Outbreaks in Eastern Ontario-a Cohort Study.

Background: The greatest impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada has been on long-term care facilities which have accounted for a large majority of the mortality seen in this country. We developed a clinical response team to perform mass assessment and provide support to long-term care facilities in Eastern Ontario with large outbreaks in the hope of reducing the impact of the outbreaks. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of all residents of LTC facilities supported by our multidisciplinary clinical response team. We collected data about the timing of the outbreak and our deployment, as well as the total number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and measured the correlation between the timing of our deployment and the observed mortality rate. Results: Our clinical team was deployed to 14 long-term care facilities, representing 719 cases and 243 deaths (mean ± standard error of mortality 34% ± 4%). Our team was deployed a mean ± standard error of 16 ± 2 days after the declaration of an outbreak. There was a significant correlation between an earlier deployment of our clinical team and a lower mortality rate for that outbreak (Pearson's r = 0.70, p < .01). Interpretation: This retrospective, uncontrolled study of a non-standardized intervention has many potential limitations. However, the data suggest that timely deployment of our clinical response team may improve outcomes in the event of a large outbreak. This clinical team may be useful in future pandemics.

Frequency of providing a palliative approach to care in family practice: a chart review and perceptions of healthcare practitioners in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Most patients nearing the end of life can benefit from a palliative approach in primary care. We currently do not know how to measure a palliative approach in family practice. The objective of this study was to describe the provision of a palliative approach and evaluate clinicians' perceptions of the results. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of deceased patients in an interprofessional team family practice. We integrated conceptual models of a palliative approach to create a chart review tool to capture a palliative approach in the last year of life and assessed a global rating of whether a palliative approach was provided. Clinicians completed a questionnaire before learning the results and after, on perceptions of how often they believed a palliative approach was provided by the team. RESULTS: Among 79 patients (mean age at death 73 years, 54% female) cancer and cardiac diseases were the top conditions responsible for death. One-quarter of patients were assessed as having received a palliative approach. 53% of decedents had a documented discussion about goals of care, 41% had nurse involvement, and 15.2% had a discussion about caregiver well-being. These indicators had the greatest discrimination between a palliative approach or not. Agreement that elements of a palliative approach were provided decreased significantly on the clinician questionnaire from before to after viewing the results. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified measurable indicators of a palliative approach in family practice, that can be used as the basis for quality improvement.

Recognising the importance of informal communication events in improving collaborative care.

BACKGROUND: While the concept of collaboration is highly touted in the literature, most descriptions of effective collaboration highlight formal collaborative events; largely ignored are the informal collaborative events and none focusing on the frequent, 'seemingly' by chance communication events that arise and their role in supporting patient safety and quality care. OBJECTIVE: To identify the types of informal communication events that exist in the inpatient setting and better understand the barriers contributing to their necessity. METHODS: We undertook a constructivist grounded theory study in an inpatient internal medicine teaching unit in Ontario, Canada. Interview and observational data were collected across two phases; in total, 56 participants were consented for the study. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively; themes were identified using constant comparison methods. RESULTS: Several types of informal communication events were identified and appeared valuable in three ways: (1) providing a better sense of a patient's baseline function in comparison to their current function; (2) gaining a more holistic understanding of the patient's needs; and (3) generating better insight into a patient's wishes and goals of care. Participants identified a number of organisational and communication challenges leading to the need for informal communication events. These included: scheduling, competing demands and the spatial and temporal organisation of the ward. As a result, nursing staff, allied health professionals and caregivers had to develop strategies for interacting with the physician team. CONCLUSION: We highlight the importance of informal communication in supporting patient care and the gaps in the system contributing to their necessity. Changes at the system level are needed to ensure we are not leaving important collaborative opportunities to chance alone.